Props at Pinnacle

[REBEL YELL]

Here is an e-mail from Pinnacle that answers a question I had about the grading of a wager.

"53214540-1
1 3:24pm
19-Dec-05 19-Dec-05 Future NFL Propositions - Green Bay vs Baltimore... +113
188.00 -188.00
Green Bay vs Baltimore 12/19
Game Props
Will the total Field Goals made be over 3?
Yes


Should not this wager have been graded a push, rather than a loss?

Thanks.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sir,

Your NFL propositions wrote " Will the total Field Goals made be over 3?" YES

Since the total field gold for the game is exactly 3, therefore your wager on "YES" option has been graded correctly as a loss.

Your wager would be a winner only the case the total field gold for the game is more than 3 (4,5....).

There can only be two answers, yes or no.?

These types of propositions do not have the possibility of a tie.

Regards,

Customer Service Department
Pinnacle Sports "

---------------------------------------------------------------------

So be careful. I assume that this would be the ruling on sacks, completions, receptions. etc.

 

[gman2]

that's piss poor wording on their part.

when you bet an over/under on a game total, the number is posted:

OVER 38
UNDER 38

if you bet OVER 38, it's implicit that you feel there will be no less than 38 points scored.

likewise for the UNDER 38.
it's implicit that you feel there will be no more than 38 points scored.

they don't grade ties on game totals as a loss, even though the bet is implicitly the same.

bottom line is that its semantics, and thats the last book i'd expect that from.

the whole "there can only be two answers: yes or no" is bullshit.

if they want ties to lose, they need to explicitly say so (im assuming they didnt since you didnt mention it). they could have cleared up the obvious ambiguity from the start.

the game didnt have more than 3 field goals.
but by that same token, it sure didnt have less.

bottom line is that when you bet regular over/unders, youre making the exact same bet you made on field goals, but they dont add "will there be over 38 points" and "will there be under 38 points". they just hang the number up and everyone understands.

 

[gman2]

this could have easily been avoided by pinnacle by wording it one of two ways:

1) will there be more than 3.5 made field goals?

every bettor knows you can't have half a field goal, so the ambiguity is eliminated right away.

or

2) will there be 4 or more made field goals?

then theres no gray area.

 

[BleedDodgerBlue]

this could have easily been avoided by pinnacle by wording it one of two ways:

1) will there be more than 3.5 made field goals?

every bettor knows you can't have half a field goal, so the ambiguity is eliminated right away.

or

2) will there be 4 or more made field goals?

then theres no gray area.

agree the semantics stinks. but im farily certain they didn't have an under bet for this prop and say total field goals under 3 and then just get rich if it lands on 3 which it did. they can't make it 3.5 or 2.5 with a fg prop because three is about the league average (could be wrong, but think im close) and unless they juice the hell out of it theyll get hit hard with unders at 3.5 and hard with overs at 3.5.

if they wanted it like a total they could have said:

total field goals made 3 over: +whatever
under: - whatever

and if lands on 3 push everyone

im a supporter of pinny and the wording does suck. if they didn't have an under 3 than i guess its kosher. thats why prop bets blow for the most part unless you take a stab at a nice payday.

gl

 

[IX_Bender]

Id expect this wager to be graded as a push, but the wording is subjective.

In the past, Ive personally called them *beforehand* in regards to bets very similar to this in the past. They were very clear in that respect as to how the bet would be graded.

Heres the example. I believe the bet was something like - will Jimmy Basketball miss a free throw, and I wanted to bet "no" and was curious as to the fact that IF he would have to attempt one. Their answer was a clear no. I made the bet and the player in question did attempt Fts and went 4-4. They paid. I have confidence they would have paid if he never went to the charity stripe.

This is a stand up book that is not versed in propositional betting. This may not sound like what you want to hear, but they *would* have paid you if you bet "No". Their grading judgment is sound from their perspective. Sadly, their perspective is the one that matters ultimately. Gmans point about treating it like other conventional wagers like totals for instance is valid, but not SOP for some books. Obviously this is one of those cases.

In the future, Id hope that they just move that line to 3 1/2 and remove any questionmarks. If there is ever any doubt about how a line will be graded based on subjective wording then its wise to call ahead. If they cannot give you an immediate answer, then dont place the wager.

BDB - Id be more than happy to buy you a beer and prove you wrong about prop bets.

 

[BleedDodgerBlue]

BDB - Id be more than happy to buy you a beer and prove you wrong about prop bets.

check that, i'll buy the beer. prop bets aren't part of my arsenal. love to hear your take. way too much research on my part to even want to get involved in the nuances of them. i do just fine with conventional wagering. but always interested in hearing more. my blanket statement sounds silly rereading it. perhaps i'll keep my eyes more in tune for it. love to hear about it from you one day. but just one beer???

 

[IX_Bender]

Maybe more than a few (beers), Ive developed a tolerance over time.

Tough to get together with folks on opposite sides of the country. That was one of the best things (other than putting faces to internet names) of making it out to Vegas for MJ's SB parties. Just the camaraderie of being around people whom are versed in moneylines, middles and backdoors. Folks who know damn well the game isnt over just becuase its 31-17 with :58 seconds left. Walking in not knowing anyones name and feeling like youre 'at home'. These are my people.

Handicapping is as diverse an endeavor as any. People work in so many different ways not only with different types of bets, but different MM styles, research angles to arrive at those decisions, analysis techniques and ultimately the ability to pull the trigger. All in all just to put together a solid bottom line.

Not to mention the highs/lows associated with the outcomes and how people react to things in-game. I believe you can never fully master this craft, and there is always something to learn if your mind is open.

 

[Agent 0659]

What the hell is a field gold?

Thanks

 

[SixFive]

if it landed on 3 and the bet was over 3, was there also an option for under 3 and an option for 3 exactly? Kind of like boxing; fighter a, fighter b, or draw.

 

[REBEL YELL]

if it landed on 3 and the bet was over 3, was there also an option for under 3 and an option for 3 exactly? Kind of like boxing; fighter a, fighter b, or draw.

Yes or No were the only options. I am not dissing the book, just cautioning other players to be aware of the wording of the props.

 

[REBEL YELL]

Sun 1/15 Will the Colts score 3.5 pts in the 1st Qtr ?

Maximum Wager: 2000.00 USD
10:00 AM 359 Yes -165 Risk To Win
360 No +148 Risk To Win

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using their logic, I should be able to play no on this prop and win. Yes and No are the options and there is no way Indy scores a half point.

 

[SixFive]

Sun 1/15 Will the Colts score 3.5 pts in the 1st Qtr ?

Maximum Wager: 2000.00 USD
10:00 AM 359 Yes -165 Risk To Win
360 No +148 Risk To Win

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using their logic, I should be able to play no on this prop and win. Yes and No are the options and there is no way Indy scores a half point.

yep. I still say that other bet was graded wrong.